Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 911
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, J
SANTOSH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRR/310/2025
Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent/State: Ms Prabha Sharma, PL
The rightful owner of seized property is entitled to interim custody, emphasizing prompt judicial action to prevent unnecessary police custody.
Headnote:(A) BNSS, 2023 - Sections 438, 442, and 497 - Criminal revision against dismissal of application for interim custody of seized money - The applicant claimed ownership of Rs. 2,00,000/- seized during investigation of a crime involving Kuldeep Sahu - The trial court dismissed the application, leading to the present revision. (Paras 1, 3, 11)
(B) Interim custody of seized property - The court emphasized the need for prompt and judicious exercise of powers under Section 497 BNSS, ensuring rightful ownership is respected and preventing unnecessary custody by police. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of obtaining Rs. 2,00,000/- from the mother of the accused in a criminal case. The police seized this amount during the investigation, and the applicant sought its return, claiming ownership.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant is the rightful owner of the seized amount and entitled to interim custody, subject to conditions.
Issues: The main issues were the ownership of the seized money and the legality of the trial court's dismissal of the application for its return.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant, as the rightful owner, should receive interim custody of the seized cash, following the principles established in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.
Result: Criminal revision petition is allowed.
Order on Board
24/03/2025
The present criminal revision under Section 438/442 of the BNSS ,2023 has been filed against the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Surajpur, District Surajpur in Sessions trial No. 08/2025 whereby the aplication filed by the applicant under Section 497 of the BNSS 2023 has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case is that FIR was registered against one Kuldeep Sahu alleging that on receiving information that said Kuldeep Sahu had committed the crime and was absconding from the car bearing registration No. CG-29/AD-5666, the police apprehended and stopped near Karma Main Road who shot fire on the police personnel, in turn the police also shot fire but he fled away. During the crouse of investigation, the police seized sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the applicant on 25.10.2024 and in the seizure memo, mother of the applicant has stated that he obtained R. 2,00,000/- from the mother of Kuldeep Sahu. The said amount was accumulated by the father of the applicant for the purpose of construction of house which was taken away by Kuldeep Sahu.
3. The applicant moved application under Section 497 of the BNSS for Supurdnama of Rs. 2,00,000/- before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Surajpur, District Surajpur which was rejected on the ground that it is a case of trial against which the applicant has filed the present revision.
4. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the order impugned is illegal and improper therefore it is liable to be set aside. He submit that as per the charge sheet the memorandum statement of the accused persons were nor recorded however, in the property seizure memo dated 25.10.2024, mother of Kuldeep Sahu-respondent No.2 has stated that on 14.10./2024, the applicant had obtained the money from the house of Kuldeep Sahu. He submits that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the amount which was alleged to be seized from the applicant belongs to the accused persons.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State submits that the impugned order passed by the trial court is well reasoned order passed on the finding and reasoning mentioned therein, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondent authority, thus, the instant revision deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
6. It is admitted fact that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- belong to the applicant and it has also been admitted by mother of Kuldeep Sahu that the said cash was taken by the applicant as the same belong to him.
From the above narration, it appears that the money stated to be seized from the applicant belongs to him and in the absence of any rebuttal proof showing that the money seized did not belong to the applicant, the presumption is, the seized money prima facie belongs to the applicant.
7. It may be useful to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat , reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated the procedure to be followed for disposal of the seized valuable articles and currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and Narcotic drugs. In paragraphs 10 to 14, it has been held as under:
10. To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.
Valuable Articles and Currency Notes : With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest.
8. As far as disposal of the seized currency notes are concerned, Section 4 97 BNSS clearly provides:
(i)for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial;
(ii)to order it to be sold or o
